 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible Study
Resource
|
 |
 |

Particulars
of Christianity:
313
Preterism
When Was
Revelation Written?
Preterism
Part 1: The Basics and Partial Preterism
Preterism Part 2: Olivet and the
Transcendent "You"
Preterism Part 3: The Remaining
"Proof Texts"
Preterism Part 4: Appealing to Josephus
Preterism Part 5: Uninterrupted
Futurism into 2nd Century
Preterism Part 6: Nero, History,
and Biblical Details
Preterism Part 7: Scripture and
a Delayed Coming
Preterism Part 8: Brief Summary
of Conclusions
Behold I Come Quickly
Things Which Must Shortly Come to Pass
When Was Revelation Written?
A Throne of His Own
Addendum: "The Time Is At Hand"
In
the other articles in this section we have provided a decisive
demonstration that Preterism is an unbiblical view of eschatology.
However, before Preterists can even begin to argue with the
points we have addressed in those articles, there is one very
large obstacle they must first overcome. That obstacle is
the date when Book of Revelation was written or more appropriately
when the vision was seen by John.
The Book of Revelation has been traditionally dated by scholars
to have been written in or about 96 AD. Obviously this date
would completely prevent anyone from accepting the Preterist
theory that the events described in Revelation took place
some 25 years earlier in 70 AD. Preterist scholars quickly
recognize that dating the book in 96 AD utterly destroys their
theory, therefore, they must challenge this dating. And so
they have.
So where do we get this date? From Irenaeus' work, Against
Heresies, Book 5, Chp. 30, written in the mid to late
100's AD. Let's take a look at the quote.
"Teitan too, (Teitan, the first syllable being written
with the two Greek vowels e and i), among all the names which
are found among us, is rather worthy of credit. For it has
in itself the predicted number, and is composed of six letters,
each syllable containing three letters; and [the word itself]
is ancient, and removed from ordinary use;ÉAnd besides this,
it is an ancient name, one worthy of credit, of royal dignity,
and still further, a name belonging to a tyrant. Inasmuch,
then, as this name "Titan" has so much to recommend it, there
is a strong degree of probability, that from among the many
[names suggested], we infer, that perchance he who is to
come shall be called "Titan." We will not, however, incur
the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist;
for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly
revealed in this present time, it would have been announced
by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen
no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the
end of Domitian's reign. 4. But he indicates the number of
the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being
aware who he is: the name, however, is suppressed, because
it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit. For
if it had been declared by Him, he (Antichrist) might perhaps
continue for a long period." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies,
Book 5, Chp. 30
This is the main source traditional scholars use to a date
when John was given the Revelation. Until the development
of Preterist doctrines, its reliability has stood the test
of time. Scholars, and indeed, Preterists themselves, can
find no basis for suggesting that Irenaeus is mistaken with
regard to history here. The specific part of this quote that
is used to date the Book of Revelation is as follows.
"for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly
revealed in this present time, it would have been announced
by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen
no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the
end of Domitian's reign."
Most scholars interpret the pronoun "that" in the phrase "that
was seen" to be "the apocalyptic vision." This seems to make
sense and to flow naturally allowing the pronoun "that" to
stand in for the nearest previous noun "vision." This assumes
the least confusing grammar for the statement. Given that
Domitian reigned from 81-96 AD, if John wrote near the end
of his reign, that would place the writing of Revelation somewhere
in the 90's.
Irenaeus states clearly "For that was seen no very long
time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's
reign." The key question, therefore, is what Irenaeus'
was referring to by the phrase "that was seen." What was seen
towards the end of Domitian's reign (which would be sometime
near 96 AD or so)? Was he referring to "him who beheld the
apocalyptic vision" (John) or was it "the apocalyptic vision"
itself?
Traditionally, this short phrase has been taken to indicate
"the apocalyptic vision" itself. This seems particularly logical
because Irenaeus is referring to something, which was "seen."
His use of "seen" reflects the apocalyptic vision that he
had just previously said was "beheld" by John. This interpretation
seems to provide the most intuitive and simple understanding
of the syntax, and this is exactly the way in which Irenaeus'
words have been traditionally been interpreted.
Preterists attempt to get around this interpretation by asserting
that it was John, not John's vision, that was seen towards
the end of Domitian's reign. In doing so they allow for a
more confusing grammatical structure of this passage in which
"that" refers not to the immediately preceding noun "vision,"
(which would be the most natural reading of the text), but
instead they insist "that" refers to the next closest preceding
noun, "John."
This is a solid example of circular reasoning. One wonders
how Preterists would read this statement if the phrase Domition's
reign were replaced with Nero's reign. The point of this exercise
is to demonstrate a very simple truth. One wonders what it
is that the Preterists find so compelling to cause them to
disagree with scholars traditional dating?
On this point we cannot ignore the fact that the entire Preterist
doctrine hangs in the balance on this one simple question.
With that in mind, there is little doubt that what Preterists
find so compelling to cause them to disagree with the traditional
date is the fact that their theory cannot survive so long
as the traditional date stands.
It is not that Preterists read this short excerpt from Irenaeus
and believe that the traditional interpretation is impossible
or even implausible. Rather, what the Preterists have done
is to go into this text and find a loophole, a loophole without
which their entire theory could not survive.
And the solution to their problem was easy enough to find,
simply change the pronoun "that" from a reference to the vision
and make it instead a reference to John himself. In this sense,
we can see that Preterists are not primarily concerned with
how Irenaeus SHOULD be read but instead with how Irenaeus
CAN be read. The reason they are focused on the versatility
of the meaning of "that" is simply because it is the only
available loophole to keep Preterism alive in the face of
the Traditional model.
On this point, Preterists' do not have the luxury of being
nonbiased. They simply have to find a way to avert the traditional
dating. So, there interpretation of Irenaeus here has nothing
to do with an objective, accurate judgment of what the author
probably meant. Instead, it has everything to do with finding
a way around the traditional dating of Revelation.
This interpretation, however, deprives us of any information
as to when "the apocalyptic vision" was "beheld." We would
have no idea whether it was written in the 60's, 70's, 80's,
or 90's AD. Under the Preterist theory there would be no way
to know.
Logically speaking, it is not necessary that Preterism provide
us with a way to firmly date Revelation. Their failure to
provide firm evidence for a date in itself does not invalidate
their theory or their interpretation of Irenaeus. It does
however bring to light their bias.
In other words, if we interpret Irenaeus as the Preterists
want we are left without any certain date for the writing
of Revelation. That means, it could have been written at any
point prior to John's death. If it was not written in the
90's, it could have been written in the 70's or 80's. Yet
the Preterists argue that it was written in the 60's. And
why? Since apart from Irenaeus there is no direct source for
dating Revelation, we have no other choice but to assume the
only evidence Preterists have for an early dating of the book
is their own theory that it was fulfilled in 70 AD. Any date
after 70 AD would negate their entire theory.
Let's take a look at it one last time in the simplest format.
Hypothesis: The prophecies in the book of Revelation
were fulfilled in 70 AD.
Test the Hypothesis Using Existing Evidence: Scholar's
traditional date for the writing of Revelation is around 96
AD.
Preterist Conclusion: Tradition scholars are wrong
because the hypothesis is true.
Or in other words, Preterists throw out the existing evidence
simply because it disagrees with their hypothesis. Then they
reconfigure the evidence to fit with their pre-existing conclusions.
The Preterists are clearly molding the evidence to arrive
at their desired conclusion. This is faulty logic and their
assessment should be rejected as biased.
There could be no clearer case of bias and no clearer case
of circular reasoning. The Preterists early dating of Revelation
is driven entirely by the assumption that Preterism is true.
According to their line of thinking, since Preterism is true
and Jesus came back in 70 AD, Revelation could not have been
written after 70 AD. Therefore, traditional scholars are wrong
and Irenaeus could not have meant that the vision was seen
in the end of Domitian's reign. As we can see, Preterists
start their analysis of Revelation's date by assuming that
Preterism is true. Here they have a clear conflict of interest
and their exegesis is operating in reverse.
Preterists' convenient re-interpretation of Irenaeus' statement
betrays their bias in the matter. Furthermore their insistence
and confidence in this unwarranted supposition is highly suspicious,
nonobjective, and quite unscholarly to say the least.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that
the Preterist interpretation of Irenaeus' statement is correct.
Let's assume that it is "John" and not "the apocalyptic vision"
that was seen near the end of Domitian's reign. Is the scenario
that they are depicting a reasonable one? Not at all. Let's
take a look at the logical outcome of their interpretation.
A Preterist view unequivocally upholds the following.
1. John was a witness and disciple of Jesus during
Jesus' life on earth.
2. John understood that Jesus would return in his lifetime
from what Jesus taught him regarding his return. This information
he effectively taught to the Church of his day.
3. God used John to record and instruct the church
with regard to the teachings of Jesus' through his own ministry
and through the writing of one Gospel, and three epistles.
4. God revealed to John a vision of Christ's return
in the 60's AD.
5. John witnessed and lived through the fulfillment
of Jesus' revelation, prophecy and teaching regarding his
return when these events occurred in 70 AD.
(Here's where we see the breakdown in plausibility.)
6. John lived for another 25 years or so after his
"apocalyptic vision" was fulfilled and Jesus returned in 70
AD.
7. During these 25 years after Jesus return, John (the
writer of one Gospel, three epistles, and recorder of "the
apocalyptic vision" describing Jesus' return), did not manage
to successfully communicate the fact that his "apocalyptic
vision" had been fulfilled 25 years earlier in 70 AD.
8. (By extension) Either God chose not to use John
to inform the Church that Jesus' second coming and the apocalyptic
vision were fulfilled in 70 AD, or God did chose to use John
in this way but for one reason or another John did not accomplish
that mission.
Based on the above Preterist scenario and the fact that all
orthodox church writers and scholars for at least two centuries
after 70 AD upheld a Futurist view of eschatology, one of
the four highly unreasonable conclusions must be drawn regarding
John, the church, and Jesus' return in 70 AD.
1. John DID NOT understand that his "apocalyptic vision"
had been fulfilled in 70 AD and so did not teach this to the
church.
2. John DID understand that his "apocalyptic vision"
had been fulfilled in 70 AD yet chose not to teach this to
the church.
3. John DID understand that his "apocalyptic vision"
had been fulfilled in 70 AD and attempted to teach this to
the church, but was completely ineffective and wholly failed
in this task.
4. John did understand that his "apocalyptic vision"
had been fulfilled in 70 AD and effectively taught this to
the church only to have his teaching on the matter universally
rejected by the church.
One last item to remember on this point: we have no record
of either John or any other member of the early Church writing
to instruct the Church that the events prophesied in the New
Testament surrounding the return of Christ ever came to pass
in 70 AD. If those events did come to pass, then the Church
was left with no instruction regarding that fact.
In summary, we conclude that Preterists have failed to demonstrate
an objective, reasonable basis for rejecting the traditional
interpretation of Irenaeus' statement. And therefore, Preterists
have failed to make the case for a pre-90's dating of Revelation.
This is based on two points, which we have argued thoroughly
above. One, the traditional intepretation of Irenaeus' statement
and the traditional dating of Revelation are inherently more
reasonable, intuitive, and simple from a grammatical standpoint.
Two, the unavoidable, logical extensions of the Preterist
view on this matter inevitably lead to an absurd understanding
of how the early Church arrived at a Futurist doctrine.
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |